Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing
Download 95.74 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Topic Analysis
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.Edited by: Kyle Cheesewright Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing. 1 Topic Analysis 4 Affirmative 5 HOUSE THE HOMELESS AFF 6 Top of Case 7 Advantage One: Housing the Homeless is Possible, and Efficient 8 Advantage Two: Housing the Homeless Lowers Crime 10 Advantage Three: Housing the Homeless Would Improve the Economy 11 Generic Housing Cards 13 Criminalization of Homelessness 16 Affordable Housing 18 Poverty 21 Human Trafficking 26 Racism 29 Additional Impacts 30 Negative Cards 33 Top of Case 34 Contention 1: Tragedy of the Commons 35 Contention 2: Counter Plan 38 International Commentary 41 Tragedy of the Commons 44 Public Housing Bad 46 Bootstraps Good, Help Bad 50 Privatize 52 Topic Analysis 3 Affirmative 4 HOUSE THE HOMELESS AFF 5 Top of Case 6 Advantage One: Housing the Homeless is Possible, and Efficient 7 Advantage Two: Housing the Homeless Lowers Crime 9 Advantage Three: Housing the Homeless Would Improve the Economy 10 Generic Housing Cards 12 Criminalization of Homelessness 15 Affordable Housing 17 Poverty 19 Human Trafficking 23 Racism 25 Additional Impacts 26 Negative Cards 29 Top of Neg Case 30 Contention 1: Tragedy of the Commons 31 Contention 2: Counter Plan 33 International Commentary 36 Tragedy of the Commons 39 Public Housing Bad 41 Bootstraps Good, Help Bad 44 Privatize 46 Topic AnalysisThis file is a collaboratively constructed file from the Beehive Forensics Institute. Many hands were involved in the creation of this file, and it should provide some useful initial steps when thinking about the right to housing topic. The Right to Housing is a notion that has existed for quite some time, and it has been expressed in several notable international documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Generally speaking, the right to housing is fairly self-explanatory—it establishes that everyone should have a right to shelter. Philosophically speaking, the right to housing connects quite directly to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which establishes shelter as one of the basic needs that all humans have in order to set themselves up to one day do other things. Housing, or shelter, is often considered a basic necessity, meaning that everything else is premised on gaining access to this right. At the same time, this is certainly not a right that is currently guaranteed in the United States. In fact, with a larger number of states passing restrictive regulations regarding homeless populations, it is clear that the current approach to homelessness in the United States is one of criminalization. At the same time, policies that criminalize homelessness largely rely on the fact that homeless populations are often quite disempowered, and lack the type of clear, loud advocates that many (particularly those who can pay people to advocate for them) have. What this sets up is a topic that should be incredibly Affirmative biased—but because of the neglected nature of the discussion, is not often upheld by society. From this fact, the “progressive” or policy level negative strategies will often rely on big stick impacts that are created from the fact that homelessness is an incredibly neglected topic, and a neglected topic that is de facto stigmatized in much of contemporary American discourse. This means that arguments like Politics Disadvantages are likely to have pretty strong links—and I imagine that many Negative debaters will choose to pursue generic routes, rather than defending the status quo’s policies of de facto criminalization. In this file, you will find two policy based strategies. The Affirmative advocates passing Affordable Housing Act—which is a nice specific policy option. If you are interested in pursing this Affirmative, I would suggest cutting additional cards about the Affordable Housing Act, and being prepared for a plethora of hyperspecific politics link cards. Many of the arguments in this Affirmative could easily be transposed into a more general defense of the resolution—and the extension cards will likely also help guide your research. On the Negative, the strategy is represented by a Counterplan/Disadvantage structure. The Disadvantage is a fairly traditional conservative rejection of social programs, coupled with a fairly liberal advocacy for a living wage. Importantly, this Counterplan is not mutually exclusive with the Affirmative. This means that Affirmatives should make permutations to arguments like this one. Despite this fact, if the Negative can win that a living wage would allow people to purchase housing, and it can do so without supporting the public programs that would be necessitated by Public Housing, then it would be better to just implement a living wage. If you are interested in this strategy, there are certainly additional arguments that you would want to pursue, particularly as they relate to solving for populations that might not be able to work. Download 95.74 Kb. Share with your friends:
|